invention-structuring

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Invention Structuring

发明结构化

Structure the invention into a formal disclosure based on: $ARGUMENTS

Adapted from the refinement pattern in

/research-refine

for patent invention decomposition.

基于**$ARGUMENTS**将发明整理为正式的披露文档。

改编自

/research-refine

中用于专利发明拆解的优化模式。

Constants

常量

```
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4
```
— External reviewer for invention decomposition validation
```
MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS = 3
```
— Maximum structuring iterations

```
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4
```
— 用于发明拆解验证的外部评审模型
```
MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS = 3
```
— 最大结构化迭代次数

Inputs

输入

Invention description from
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
```
patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md
```
if exists
```
patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md
```
— prior art landscape
```
patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
```
— novelty analysis

来自
```
$ARGUMENTS
```
的发明描述
若存在则加载
```
patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md
```
```
patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md
```
— 现有技术现状报告
```
patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
```
— 新颖性分析报告

Shared References

共享参考资料

Load

../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md

for the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework and claimable subject matter guidelines.

加载

../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md

，获取“问题-方案-优势”框架以及可主张主题的指导原则。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Problem-Solution-Advantage Framework

步骤1：问题-方案-优势框架

Structure the invention using the universal patent framework:

Technical Problem (要解决的技术问题):

Derived from prior art deficiencies identified in NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
Must be a specific, technical problem (not a commercial or social problem)
Statement format: "The technical problem to be solved is how to [specific technical objective] given [specific technical constraint]."

Technical Solution (技术方案):

The invention's specific technical contribution
Focus on the mechanism, not the result
Must be described at a level that matches the intended claim scope
Identify which features are known vs. inventive

Advantages (有益效果):

Measurable or quantifiable improvements over prior art
Must result from the inventive features, not just good engineering
Include specific technical effects if known (e.g., "reduces processing time by 40%")

采用通用专利框架构建发明内容：

技术问题：

源自《NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md》中指出的现有技术缺陷
必须是特定的技术问题（而非商业或社会问题）
表述格式：“要解决的技术问题是在[特定技术约束]下，如何实现[特定技术目标]。”

技术方案：

发明的特定技术贡献
聚焦于机制，而非结果
描述粒度需与预期的权利要求范围匹配
区分已知特征与创造性特征

有益效果：

相较于现有技术可衡量或量化的改进
必须由创造性特征带来，而非仅依赖优秀的工程实现
若已知则包含具体技术效果（例如：“将处理时间缩短40%”）

Step 2: Invention Decomposition

步骤2：发明拆解

Break the invention into three layers:

Core Inventive Concept (核心发明构思):

The minimal set of features that make the invention patentable
This maps to the independent claim scope
Test: if you remove this feature, the invention is no longer novel

Supporting Features (支撑性特征):

Features that make the invention work well in practice
These become dependent claim material
They narrow the scope but add practical value

Optional Features (可选特征):

Implementation details, preferred parameters, alternatives
These become embodiment material
They support broader claim interpretation

将发明分为三个层级：

核心发明构思：

使发明具备专利性的最小特征集合
对应独立权利要求的范围
测试标准：移除该特征后，发明将不再具备新颖性

支撑性特征：

使发明在实际场景中高效运行的特征
作为从属权利要求的素材
缩小权利要求范围但增加实用价值

可选特征：

实现细节、优选参数、替代方案
作为实施例的素材
支持对更宽泛权利要求的解释

Step 3: Claimable Subject Matter Identification

步骤3：可主张主题识别

For the core inventive concept, determine what categories of claims to draft:

Category	Applicability	Content
Method/process	If invention involves steps	Process flow, algorithm, workflow
System/apparatus	If invention involves components	Hardware structure, modules, connections
Product	If invention is a physical device	Shape, structure, composition
Computer-readable medium	If software invention (US)	Stored instructions, non-transitory medium
Product-by-process	If structure is hard to define	Product defined by how it is made

针对核心发明构思，确定应起草的权利要求类别：

类别	适用场景	内容
Method/process	若发明包含步骤	流程、算法、工作流
System/apparatus	若发明包含组件	硬件结构、模块、连接关系
Product	若发明为物理设备	形状、结构、组成
Computer-readable medium	若为软件发明（美国适用）	存储的指令、非暂时性介质
Product-by-process	若结构难以定义	通过制造方式定义的产品

Step 4: Drawing Plan

步骤4：绘图规划

Plan what figures are needed to support the claims and specification:

Figure	Type	Shows	Supports Claim Elements
FIG. 1	Block diagram	System architecture	System claim components
FIG. 2	Flowchart	Method steps	Method claim steps
FIG. 3	Sequence diagram	Interaction between components	Specific implementation details

If user has provided figures, reference them here. If figures are missing, note what is needed.

规划支撑权利要求和说明书所需的附图：

附图	类型	展示内容	支撑的权利要求要素
FIG. 1	框图	系统架构	系统权利要求的组件
FIG. 2	流程图	方法步骤	方法权利要求的步骤
FIG. 3	时序图	组件间交互	特定实现细节

若用户已提供附图，请在此处引用。若缺少附图，需注明所需内容。

Step 5: Dependency Mapping

步骤5：依赖关系映射

Map feature dependencies to plan the claim hierarchy:

Independent Claim 1 (method, broadest scope)
├── Core inventive feature A
├── Core inventive feature B
└── Known feature C (for context)

Dependent Claim 2 → narrows feature A with specific implementation
Dependent Claim 3 → narrows feature B with specific parameters
Dependent Claim 4 → depends on 2, adds optional feature D
Dependent Claim 5 → alternative implementation of feature A

映射特征依赖关系以规划权利要求层级：

Independent Claim 1 (method, broadest scope)
├── Core inventive feature A
├── Core inventive feature B
└── Known feature C (for context)

Dependent Claim 2 → narrows feature A with specific implementation
Dependent Claim 3 → narrows feature B with specific parameters
Dependent Claim 4 → depends on 2, adds optional feature D
Dependent Claim 5 → alternative implementation of feature A

Step 6: Cross-Model Validation

步骤6：跨模型验证

Call

REVIEWER_MODEL

via

mcp__codex__codex

with xhigh reasoning:

mcp__codex__codex:
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a patent attorney reviewing an invention disclosure.
    Evaluate the structuring choices:

    INVENTION: [Problem-Solution-Advantage summary]
    DECOMPOSITION: [Core/Supporting/Optional features]
    CLAIM PLAN: [intended claim categories and hierarchy]

    Please assess:
    1. Is the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework correctly applied?
    2. Is the core inventive concept correctly identified? Are there features that should be core but are listed as supporting (or vice versa)?
    3. Are the planned claim categories sufficient to protect the invention?
    4. Is the drawing plan adequate for enablement?
    5. Are there any claimable aspects being missed?

通过

mcp__codex__codex

调用

REVIEWER_MODEL

，并设置超高推理强度：

mcp__codex__codex:
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    You are a patent attorney reviewing an invention disclosure.
    Evaluate the structuring choices:

    INVENTION: [Problem-Solution-Advantage summary]
    DECOMPOSITION: [Core/Supporting/Optional features]
    CLAIM PLAN: [intended claim categories and hierarchy]

    Please assess:
    1. Is the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework correctly applied?
    2. Is the core inventive concept correctly identified? Are there features that should be core but are listed as supporting (or vice versa)?
    3. Are the planned claim categories sufficient to protect the invention?
    4. Is the drawing plan adequate for enablement?
    5. Are there any claimable aspects being missed?

Step 7: Output

步骤7：输出

Write

patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md

markdown

undefined

撰写

patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md

：

markdown

undefined

Invention Disclosure

Title

[invention title]

Technical Problem

[formal problem statement]

Technical Solution

[formal solution description]

Advantages

[measurable advantages]

Feature Decomposition

Core Inventive Concept

[features that define independent claim scope]

Supporting Features

[features for dependent claims]

Optional Features

[features for embodiments]

Claimable Subject Matter

[method, system, product, medium claims planned]

Drawing Plan

[figures needed, what each shows]

Dependency Map

[claim hierarchy plan]

Inventor Information

[names, contributions]

Target Jurisdiction

[CN/US/EP/ALL]

undefined

[CN/US/EP/ALL]

undefined

Key Rules

关键规则

The Problem must come from prior art deficiencies, not from commercial needs.
The Solution must describe the technical mechanism, not just the result.
The core inventive concept must be the minimum set of features for patentability.
Supporting features should be independently valuable -- each should provide a meaningful technical benefit even if other supporting features are removed.
Never invent embodiments that do not correspond to the actual invention or user-provided materials.
If
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
is not available, skip cross-model validation and note it in the output.

技术问题必须源自现有技术缺陷，而非商业需求。
技术方案必须描述技术机制，而非仅说明结果。
核心发明构思必须是具备专利性的最小特征集合。
支撑性特征应具备独立价值——即使移除其他支撑性特征，每个特征都应能提供有意义的技术收益。
不得虚构与实际发明或用户提供材料不符的实施例。
若
```
mcp__codex__codex
```
不可用，则跳过跨模型验证并在输出中注明。